Abolition Making Victims into Criminals
Many Republican voters who abhor abortion chose to vote for other candidates. I am among them. I like Dan. I certainly want an end to the child killing. But there were other issues on which I made my decision.
Some voters did not believe he would succeed at ending abortion, so they voted on the basis of matters they felt could be accomplished. Some worried about federal intervention if he was successful. Others were persuaded that the rhetoric against existing, and proposed, pro-life measures was counterproductive. Still others simply didn’t know about him, because of the severe under funding of his campaign.
I had a more basic concern. While I never heard anything from the candidate himself to specifically confirm my concerns, several high profile advocates of his candidacy, communicated a premise of criminal culpability on women who are victimized by the abortion industry.
With rare exception, a woman who seeks and receives an abortion is duped by advocates and providers that the tissue within them is not a living, real, distinct person who is being murdered in a most vile and extreme way.
Yes, they know it will be a child. They think it might already be one. But then they are persuaded that it is not. Not yet. It is a sad reality that while pharmaceutical advertisements are obliged to include a broad list of potential side effects, a provider of abortions is not required to communicate the true nature of their services. They don’t have to inform the woman that a living, distinct human being will be dismembered or pickled to death.
These women are also victims of abortion. They are not, and must not, be considered criminals. Calling them criminals, murderers, is a level of extremism that simply cannot be tolerated!
During the Nazi domination of Germany and its conquered lands, some Jews were manipulated into cooperating in minor ways with a hope that by letting a few die they might prevent the deaths of many. It was rare that their efforts were successful. Nonetheless, these victims were not true collaborators and most certainly were not guilty of the holocaust.
To end abortion is a laudable intent. To prevent some abortions, to limit others, and to create information that may dissuade others still is helpful. Such pro-life actions do save lives, and those actions are not responsible for the continuation of the worldwide holocaust that is abortion. This is contrary to the rhetoric of the abolition movement. Saving a life is good. Saving more is better. But, not saving any because you can’t save all is inexcusable.
Further, we need a new understanding of when a life deserving of all the rights incumbent on any other person begins. We all know that life begins at conception, but is that one living cell actually a person? I believe it is. However, the law and society will not accept my belief. The definition of individual life must be rational, science based and consistent. It can’t be based on my beliefs, or on the beliefs of many, even most people. Even as a religious belief should not define it, neither should the whims of a judicial proclamation.
What is needed is a consistent definition of life that can be used for law and find persuasion among the populace. If a single living human cell is a life, then we must realize that every person we bury as dead is yet alive. Indeed, millions of cells remain alive long after heart failure and/or brain death.
My exhortation to those who (like me) wish to end abortion is to find information and communicate that information in ways which can work to persuade people of the brutal and murderous activity that is common in abortion facilities. The extreme language used by today’s abolition movement is counterproductive and has resulted in some people reversing from support of life to support of abortion.
Richard Engle is the author of the novel, The Last American President. Richard speaks and writes often on political matters. Richard can be reached at (405)640-9219 or firstname.lastname@example.org